Sen. Boxer Promises Carbon Market Legislation by the End of the Year

Ronald Bailey | February 3, 2009

The chair of the Senate environment and public works committee, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) held a press conference earlier today promising to get a bill regulating carbon dioxide emissions out of her committee, perhaps within weeks. As the Guardian reports:

Democrat leaders in Congress committed to swift action on a green agenda today, promising draft cap and trade legislation for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions before the Copenhagen round of climate change negotiations in December...

Flanked by Democratic senators and representatives from environmental and business organisations, she sketched out six broad guiding principles:

• a commitment to reducing emissions to levels guided by science to avoid global warming;

• setting enforceable short- and long-term emissions targets;

• establishing a carbon market;

• investing in clean technology;

• supporting efforts by local and state governments to deal with climate change;

• supporting developing nations.

But the challenge for Boxer was underlined by the vagueness of the principles and the absence of any show of support from Republicans on the committee.

Note that Boxer did not promise that Congress will pass a law establishing a carbon market by the time the U.N. Climate Change Conference begins in Copenhagen this coming December. In any case, Boxer's push for a cap-and-trade scheme is the triumph of naive hope over Europe's bitter experience. 

Comments

SIV|2.3.09 @ 2:09PM|#

a commitment to reducing emissions to levels guided by science to avoid global warming

Reaching for my pitchfork and torch

|2.3.09 @ 2:17PM|#

I've posted this before, but it is worth repeating: There will be many a ill-gotten million with any kind of carbon-credit horseshit that passes. Combined with other toxic-winners like Card Check, it will also doom Obamanator to one term.

An article in Reason exploring ways to interact with this carbon-credit disaster for profit would be highly entertaining.

Taktix®|2.3.09 @ 2:22PM|#

supporting developing nations

Great. Now, instead of wasting billions of dollars fighting a bogeyman dometically, we're wasting more billions fighting a bogeyman in other countries.

I guess they're taking that "fight them overseas so we don't have to fight them at home" business too literally...

|2.3.09 @ 2:22PM|#

Can't we just shut everything off for a year?

|2.3.09 @ 2:25PM|#

"Great. Now, instead of wasting billions of dollars fighting a bogeyman dometically, we're wasting more billions fighting a bogeyman in other countries."

I always figured the DevWorld was carbon neutral, or even in deficit, because they don't have any internal-combustion engines. Helping the developing world do what? Get fuel cells?

I suddenly have this vision of a fetid Lagos slum with a wind-mill in the background, and a Honda FCX on cinderblocks.

Taktix®|2.3.09 @ 2:26PM|#

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) held a press conference earlier today promising to get a bill regulating carbon dioxide emissions out of her committee, perhaps within weeks.

There are carbon dioxide emissions in her committee?

CONFLICT OF INTEREST!

Jerry|2.3.09 @ 2:36PM|#

Will there be a carbon market SEC?

|2.3.09 @ 2:39PM|#

I confidently predict it won't pass both houses. It may not pass either. Democratic majority ≠ Green majority.

|2.3.09 @ 2:47PM|#

shoot me now shoot me now

Reinmoose|2.3.09 @ 2:57PM|#

I second J sub D's prediction.

No Name Guy|2.3.09 @ 2:57PM|#

"a commitment to reducing emissions to levels guided by science to avoid global warming;"

Ah, in other words, no reduction required as real science (that is, testable, falsifiable hypothesis/theory such as F=mA that actually describes the physical world that we live in) indicates, so far at least, that CO2 concentration has negligible impact on temperature.

|2.3.09 @ 2:57PM|#

Sorry, Warren, you don't get off that easily.

I think this administration plus the last two is punishment for we libertarians thinking that we were about to win in the 90s. Wrong!

|2.3.09 @ 2:57PM|#

Actually, that's not fair. Congress sucks ass, too.

Neu Mejican|2.3.09 @ 3:02PM|#

I think a better plan would be a revenue neutral carbon tax replacing income and labor taxes.

It would need to include a ramping up, or some sort of transitioning period to give companies and individuals a reasonable heads up/chance to react/plan.

Neu Mejican|2.3.09 @ 3:04PM|#

Boxer's committee needs to talk to BC to get some ideas on implementation.

http://www2.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=ecea1487-507c-43ef-ab88-5a972898e0b7&k=38130

|2.3.09 @ 3:05PM|#

Pro Lib,
I have fading memories from the turn of the millennium about how Barry Goldwater lost in 64 but won control of the GOP, and Milton Friedman's Chicago School of economics triumphed and forever put to rest the insane ravings of John Maynard Keynes.

What ever happened to that?

|2.3.09 @ 3:06PM|#

Those were lies, Warren. Lies.

Greatidea|2.3.09 @ 3:07PM|#

Enron's business model combine with a market created by the federal government. What could possibly go wrong?

|2.3.09 @ 3:11PM|#

Greatidea | February 3, 2009, 3:07pm | #
Enron's business model combine with a market created by the federal government. What could possibly go wrong?

Where can I get that emblazoned on a T-shirt.

Johnny Nowhere|2.3.09 @ 3:14PM|#

a commitment to reducing emissions to levels guided by science to avoid global warming

This one made me scratch my head, as it implies that the Committee thinks that global warming is not an ongoing issue, but a possible future problem. Maybe they worded it that way to assuage Republicans, I thought?

So I went to the PDF issued by Boxer, which has this slightly different wording:

Reduce emissions to levels guided by science to avoid dangerous global warming.

I see huge issues with interpreting the "dangerous" in that statement.

|2.3.09 @ 3:25PM|#

"There are carbon dioxide emissions in her committee?"

I can think of some other type of gas emissions from Barbara Boxer's commiittee.

|2.3.09 @ 3:27PM|#

I see huge issues with interpreting the "dangerous" in that statement.

Especially since "dangerous" is not a scientific conclusion, and so science can give no guidance in reducing emissions to levels to avoid dangerous global warming.

For discussion:

In any case, Boxer's push for a cap-and-trade scheme is the triumph of naive hope over Europe's bitter experience.

Is Boxer so stupid/naive that she thinks cap and trade will actually reduce emissions? Or is she so malevolent that she is intentionally pushing a scheme to entrench big business, wring more revenue out of the citizenry, and provide yet more avenues for politicians to reward their friends and punish their enemies?

The Angry Optimist|2.3.09 @ 3:35PM|#

Please, RC, this is Barbara Boxer we're talking about, not Lex Luthor.

"Those who survived the San Francisco earthquake said, 'Thank God, I'm still alive.' But, of course, those who died, their lives will never be the same again. "

So...yeah...

Kolohe|2.3.09 @ 3:37PM|#

a commitment to reducing emissions to levels guided by science to avoid global warming (em added)

I see huge issues in the word 'avoid'. Most mainstream predictions already say that the negative consequences of climate change are unavoidable at current levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.

For instance this UN site says straight out:

Some level of climate change and impacts from it is already unavoidable. Societies must do more to adapt to ongoing and unavoidable changes in the earth's climate system by:

Like every other human activity you cannot "avoid" the negative consequences, you can only mitigate and ameliorate.

its gonna warm|2.3.09 @ 3:39PM|#

Fighting "global warming" is pointless. We need to concern ourselves with saving our resources, and the carbon "wars" will follow suite.

We're in a 5 billion year warming trend folks.

checking out what hawkings has to say about it on Youtube.

Look up

Steven Hawkings: Survival of the human species.

HammeredHead|2.3.09 @ 3:43PM|#

I had really hoped the Credit Crisis would replace the Climate Crisis. I now see that they are being run concurrently.

Our governmental over-lords are getting more skilled at pulling the wool over our eyes. Bravo!!!

Anonymous|2.3.09 @ 4:02PM|#

WTF? Let's just not stimulate the economy and then we'll use less energy. And save money.

|2.3.09 @ 4:25PM|#

"We're in a 5 billion year warming trend folks."

The earth is only 4.56 billion years old.

Neu Mejican|2.3.09 @ 4:31PM|#

bookworm,

There is way more wrong with that than the age of the Earth...;^)

Esperanza Mcgwire|2.3.09 @ 4:32PM|#

"We're in a 5 billion year warming trend folks."

Yes some day the sun will engulf the earth. But it is safe to say that will happen in the out years of any plan.

economsit|2.3.09 @ 5:20PM|#

"I think a better plan would be a revenue neutral carbon tax replacing income and labor taxes."

Perhaps. Though I highly doubt that the elimination of income and labor taxes would actually occur. More likely, the carbon tax would be added to the current load of taxes.

|2.4.09 @ 10:55AM|#

I think a better plan would be a revenue neutral carbon tax replacing income and labor taxes.

Even if it were a revenue neutral replacement, I am deeply suspicious of taxes that are invisible to the taxpayer. Such taxes break the political feedback loop that should help keep the tax burden under control.